Pravna literatura

Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 1.

The author analyses the judgements of subordinated bonds and the judgement of Swiss francs from the banks’ point of view. The author explains that in the latter case, the Supreme Court strongly emphasised the responsibility that an individual has towards himself, especially considering that the sole purpose of the Directive is consumer protection. The author emphasises that when ascertaining whether there was a breach of obligation and the nullity of a legal transaction depends on it, the Court should take into account the omission of an explanation which prevented the consumer from assessing the economic consequences of the contract and actually disadvantaged and harmed the consumer as well as explanations that the bank was reasonably able to give because the risk involved was known or should have been known to it. The author concludes that in the case of subordinate bonds, the banks had stringent standards to satisfy regarding their obligation to inform, which there is no legal reason for.